以視覺設計文法比較臺澳科學教科書圖像－以七年級生物分類單元為例

Comparing the Images in Taiwanese and Australian Science Textbooks by Grammar of Visual Design: An Example of Biological Classification

10.6173/CJSE.2014.2202.01

蓋允萍(Yun-Ping Ge)；鍾昌宏(Chang-Hung Chung)；王國華(Kuo-Hua Wang)；張惠博(Huey-Por Chang)；Len Unsworth

生物分類 ； 科學教科書 ； 視覺設計文法 ； 跨國比較 ； 圖像 ； Biological Classification ； Science Textbook ； Grammar of Visual Design ； Cross-Country Comparison ； Image

科學教育學刊

22卷2期（2014 / 06 / 01）

109 - 134

繁體中文

社會符號學指出科學教科書的圖像設計無法免除社會文化的影響，本研究旨在探討臺澳教科書中圖像表徵之差異，以視覺設計文法為理論架構（Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006），從三個後設功能（概念、人際、與語篇）分析圖像所隱含的意義。本研究採內容分析法，取樣臺澳七年級教科書各三個版本，以生物分類單元的圖像作為分析對象。所分析的圖像原有325個圖組，在決定圖像最小單位後，成為990個單位圖像，依照編碼表將每個圖像編碼，分別計量後再進行質與量的比較。結果顯示，在概念後設功能方面，兩國在第一層與第二層的圖像結構分佈類似，第一層主類別皆以概念結構最多，敘述結構極少；第二層次類別多以分析與分類等結構表徵生物特徵與分類的概念。深入第三層對分類次類別的圖像分析後，發現澳版較多採用顯明分類的方式，能彰顯類別的階層關係，臺版多用的隱蔽分類方式則無此功能；在人際後設功能方面，澳版較能運用圖像在動作、參與度、社會距離與權力關係等層面的設計技巧，營造讀者與圖像間較佳的人際關係；語篇後設功能方面，臺澳在版置安排的差異潛藏著社會文化的影響。上述概念、人際、與語篇三個後設功能的分析顯示臺澳科學教科書的圖像的確存在著差異，文末並對教科書圖像編輯與教學提出建議。

Social semiotics proposes that image design is influenced by socio-culture. Drawing on the theoretical framework from grammar of visual design (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006), this study compares the images in Taiwanese and Australian high school science textbooks according to three metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual. Content analysis is used to analyze the sample units of biological classification, which are shared most consistently across six textbooks: three from Taiwan and the other three from Australia. According to our coding scheme, 325 original image complexes can be analyzed into 990 basic image units. All of them are coded qualitatively and compared quantitatively. The comparison of ideational metafunction indicates that the image structures in the first and second level analysis are similar between countries. The majority of images are represented by conceptual structure. Only a few are represented by narrative structure. Both analytical and classificational structures are the most common subtypes to represent the features of living things and their taxonomy. The difference between countries is not revealed until a further analysis of analytical images. It is found that Australian versions use more representation of overt taxonomy which can explicitly represent hierarchical relationships of classification among concepts. Instead, Taiwanese versions use more representation of covert taxonomy which is short of such function. The comparison of interpersonal metafunction reveals that Australian versions skillfully use the functions of image act, involvement, and social distance to construct a closer relationship between the images and readers. The comparison of textual metafunction unfolds that the difference of image design is influenced by the factors from socio-culture. The results from these three metafunctions all confirm that there are some differences among the images in Taiwanese and Australian science textbooks. The implications for images teaching are discussed. Also, suggestions for publication of science textbooks and further research are made.

1. 林玉雯、黃台珠、劉嘉茹(2010)。探討圖形表徵與視知覺學習偏好對生物辨識學習之影響。科學教育學刊，18(6)，521-546。
   連結：
2. 黃台珠、Aldridge, J. M.、Fraser, B.(1998)。臺灣和西澳科學教室環境的跨國研究：結合質性與量的研究方法。科學教育學刊，6(4)，343-362。
   連結：
3. 楊榮祥、Fraser, B.(1998)。臺灣和西澳科學教室環境的合作研究─研究架構、方法及對臺灣科學教育的啓思。科學教育學刊，6(4)，325-342。
   連結：
4. 盧秀琴(2005)。探討教科書與中小學學生學習細胞相關概念的關係。科學教育學刊，13(4)，367-386。
   連結：
5. 林清江(1998)。國民教育九年一貫課程規劃專案報告。臺北市：教育部。
6. 國立臺灣師範大學科學教育中心(2007)。TIMSS 2007國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查。查詢日期：2011年3月1日。檢自http://www.dorise.info/DER/01_timss_2007_html/ index.html。
7. Board of Studies in New South Wales. (2009). Science year 7-10 syllabus. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/
8. Ausubel, D. P.,Novak, J. D.,Hanesian, H.(1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view.New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
9. Babbie, E.(2001).The practice of social research.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
10. Barthes, R.(1967).Elements of semiology.London:Cape.
11. Burr, V.(1995).An introduction to social constructionism.London:Routledge.
12. Cook, M. P.(2006).Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles.Science Education,90(6),1073-1091.
13. Daly, A.,Unsworth, L.(2011).Analysis and comprehension of multimodal texts.Australia Journal of Language and Literacy,34(1),61-80.
14. Dimopoulos, K.,Koulaidis, V.,Sklaveniti, S.(2003).Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology.Research in Science Education,33(2),189-216.
15. diSessa, A. A.(2004).Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction.Cognition and Instruction,22(3),293-331.
16. Gagné, E. D.,Yekovich, C. W.,Yekovich, F. R.(1993).The cognitive psychology of school learning.New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.
17. Halliday, M. A. K.(1978).Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.London:Edward Arnold.
18. Han, J.,Roth, W. M.(2006).Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro-and microworld.Science Education,90(2),173-201.
19. Harrison, A. G.(2001).How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students?.Research in Science Education,31(3),401-435.
20. Hatzinikita, V.,Dimopoulos, K.,Christidou, V.(2008).PISA test items and school textbooks related to science: A textual comparison.Science Education,92(4),664-687.
21. Houghton, H. A.(Ed.),Willows, D. M.(Ed.)(1987).The psychology of Illustration volume 2, instructional issues.New York:Spring-Verlag.
22. Hsu, P. L.,Yang, W. G.(2007).Print and image integration of science texts and reading comprehension: A systemic functional linguistics perspective.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,5(4),639-659.
23. Ifenthaler, D.(2010).Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps.Educational Technology Research and Development,58(1),81-97.
24. Kahveci, A.(2010).Quantitative analysis of science and chemistry textbooks for indicators of reform: A complementary perspective.International Journal of Science Education,32(11),1495-1519.
25. Kozma, R.(2003).The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding.Learning and Instruction,13(2),205-226.
26. Kress, G.,Van Leeuwen, T.(2006).Reading images: The grammar of visual design.New York:Routledge.
27. Kuhn, T. S.、程樹德譯、傅大為譯、王道還譯、錢永祥譯(1994)。科學革命的結構。臺北市:遠流。
28. Lemke, J. L.(1990).Talking science: Language, learning, and values.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
29. Lemoni, R.,Lefkaditou, A.,Stamou, A. G.,Schizas, D.,Stamou, G. P.(2013).Views of nature and the human-nature relations: An analysis of the visual syntax of pictures about the environment in Greek primary school textbooks-diachronic considerations.Research in Science Education,43(1),117-140.
30. Martin, J. R.(Ed.),Veel, R.(Ed.)(1998).Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science.London:Routledge.
31. Martinec, R.,Salway, A.(2005).A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media.Visual Communication,4(3),337-371.
32. Moore, D. W.,Readence, J. E.(1984).A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research.Journal of Educational Research,78(1),11-17.
33. Nesbit, J. C.,Adesope, O. O.(2006).Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A metaanalysis.Review of Educational Research,76(3),413-448.
34. Patrick, M. D.,Carter, G.,Wiebe, E. N.(2005).Visual representations of DNA replication: Middle grades students' perceptions and interpretations.Journal of Science Education and Technology,14(3),353-365.
35. Pingel, F.(2009).UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision.Paris, France:United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
36. Pirozzollo, F. J.(Ed.),Wittrock, M. C.(Ed.)(1981).Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading.New York:Academic Press.
37. Pozzer, L. L.,Roth, W. M.(2003).Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks.Jounal of Research in Science Teaching,40(10),1089-1114.
38. Pozzer-Ardenghi, L.,Roth, W. M.(2005).Making sense of photographs.Science Education,89(2),219-241.
39. Roth, W. M.,Bowen, G. M.,McGinn, M. K.(1999).Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(9),977-1019.
40. Roth, W. M.,Lawless, D.(2002).Science, culture, and the emergence of language.Science Education,86(3),368-385.
41. Rowe, M. B.(Ed.)(1990).What research says to the science teacher: The process of knowing.Washington, DC:National Science Teachers Association.
42. Royce, D. T.(1998).Synergy on the page: Exploring intersemiotic complementarity in pagebased multimodal text.Japan Association Systemic Functional Linguistics Occasional Papers,1(1),25-50.
43. Schnotz, W.,Bannert, M.(2003).Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation.Learning and Instruction,13(2),141-156.
44. Seufert, T.(2003).Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations.Learning and Instruction,13(2),227-237.
45. Spence, D. J.,Yore, L. D.,Williams, R. L.(1999).The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students' metacognition and comprehension of specific science text.Journal of Elementary Science Education,11(2),15-30.
46. Sullivan, J. P.(2008).The use of photographs to portray urban ecosystems in six introductory environmental science textbooks.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(9),1003-1020.
47. Unsworth, L.(2001).Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice.Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
48. Unsworth, L.(2006).Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction.English Teaching: Practice and Critique,5(1),55-76.
49. Whorf, B. L.(1956).Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of benjamin lee whorf.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
50. Willows, D. M.(Ed.),Houghton, H. A.(Ed.)(1987).The psychology of illustration.New York:Springer-Verlag.
51. Wu, H. K.,Shah, P.(2004).Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning.Science Education,88(3),465-492.
52. 王文科、王智弘(2006)。教育研究法（第十版）。臺北市:五南。
53. 羊憶蓉、成露茜(1996)。邁向二十一世紀新新教育─從澳洲「關鍵能力」教育計劃試探臺灣的教改前景。社改通訊，22，14-17。
54. 孫曉崗(2009)。佛教藝術與中國繪畫。美與時代，4，33-36。

1. 鍾昌宏、王國華(2015)。IPAD AIR─一個翻轉教學策略。教育脈動，1，92-100。